I don't know how well travelled you are and whether you have had friendships and friendly interactions with people on all levels of society in different cultures - I have. I also have taken courses and read a lot of sociology, psychology, and the very interesting cultural anthropology. At one point I was thinking of finding a career in one of these, but in trying to finance this I ended up on a different track.

So it's been a very long time since I studied these things and I haven't kept up with advances at all. Probably what I can recall is outdated. But what isn't outdated is my vast experience with people from all kinds of cultures and walks of life.

Most of the world's population's experience with other people is on a very limited scope. Family, colleagues, local vendors etc. In cities it really isn't that much better - you see a ton of people on the streets - but you rarely exchange a word with them except for basic polite interactions. You know nothing about them. Some go to bars and clubs etc, a little interaction there but all confined to an assigned level.

Most people don't know shit about others and what makes them tick. Everyone has theories about it. In less evolved societies these theories and opinions are often completely baseless, made up, superstitious reflections of themselves and their relatives and anecdotal history. More advanced societies do a little better, but not all that much.

Apart from the physical impossibility of creating a world society of affluence overnight, you are going to have a heck of a time bringing all of these people, their ideologies and prejudices on board with any one idea.

I am not categorically opposed to communism (which this is) or anarchy or a libertarian society - but they don't seem to work because they ignore the human nature that has evolved for eons and can't wiped out and replaced just because it's rational to do so. They are intellectual theories that sound good but fail in application. Maybe eventually humanity will advance enough to be able to adopt one of these, but it isn't now, not by a long shot.

We are all animals after all. We are hardwired with fight or flight impulses, with some people these are exxagerated or faulty. We have hormones like adrenaline exacerbating these hard wired reactions. Religions exist for a reason - people's need for a simple explanation and framework. You can't wipe out culturally ingrained behaviors and thought processes all at once, nor in the course of a couple of generations.

There would be countless bastions of resistance. Possibly, but not necessarily, hostile opposition.

In short: Humans would have to evolve a lot more for this to work. You can't take short cuts in evolution.

And that is not even starting to take into account that it would be physically very daunting to bring such a freebie society into existance.

It's good and fine to think about alternate cultural models, if everyone did we would be better for it all around. But these ideologies and ideas fail in applicability at the time.

With the new world wide communication available online cultural advances may be speeding up now. In a generation or so, most everyone will be online and able to interact with people from all corners of the world and learn to understand them. Maybe then a decent foundation for world peace ( a prerequisite for your model) and societal evolution will be easier to form.

But we ain't there yet.

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man

(28-12-2012 06:01 AM)Dom Wrote: I don't know how well travelled you are and whether you have had friendships and friendly interactions with people on all levels of society in different cultures - I have. I also have taken courses and read a lot of sociology, psychology, and the very interesting cultural anthropology. At one point I was thinking of finding a career in one of these, but in trying to finance this I ended up on a different track.

So it's been a very long time since I studied these things and I haven't kept up with advances at all. Probably what I can recall is outdated. But what isn't outdated is my vast experience with people from all kinds of cultures and walks of life.

I am blind and ignorant to the mainstream social world. I can only understand people in very close up psychologic analysis or from afar, in terms of global sociologic interactions. This is why I bring a very new fresh look into society, I have to, that's all I have. I am a perceiver of patterns, a thinker in patterns. The social world obeys similar laws as the rest of nature, there are equivalents and correspondences to a life cycle or flow of water and electricity, for example. By observing and using these principles we hope to bring the science of society nearer the standard and benefits that we have from other sciences. This process of course requires to translate these principles as closely as possible into real world solutions. (this is perhaps why I am a student of public administration at the moment)

(28-12-2012 06:01 AM)Dom Wrote: Most of the world's population's experience with other people is on a very limited scope. Family, colleagues, local vendors etc. In cities it really isn't that much better - you see a ton of people on the streets - but you rarely exchange a word with them except for basic polite interactions. You know nothing about them. Some go to bars and clubs etc, a little interaction there but all confined to an assigned level.

Most people don't know shit about others and what makes them tick. Everyone has theories about it. In less evolved societies these theories and opinions are often completely baseless, made up, superstitious reflections of themselves and their relatives and anecdotal history. More advanced societies do a little better, but not all that much.

As you can guess, I have a theory too. Better said, I construct a theory using other theories (and science) as building blocks or raw resources. It requires a very broad mind and pattern-seeking abilities, but I happen to have that, if not much else.

(28-12-2012 06:01 AM)Dom Wrote: Apart from the physical impossibility of creating a world society of affluence overnight, you are going to have a heck of a time bringing all of these people, their ideologies and prejudices on board with any one idea.

Not overnight, ten years at least. It's purely a technical and scientific problem and we already have the solution, it's only a question of political will to apply it. Fresco is an engineer and he wouldn't say it if it wasn't possible. Today there is actually about 10% surplus of food on the planet, only it is unevenly distributed and mostly wasted. For example, in America 50 % of all food is thrown away. In the rest of the world the percentage is lower, but not by much. Furthermore, USA uses 5 times as much of energy per capita than any other nation. The resources are not rare. They're abundant, but they are being stolen and wasted. If you realize that, RBE makes perfect sense.

As for the people, it is not necessary nor possible to convince everyone. 1 billion of people should be enough and there is about 1.8 billion of people ready for a change, perhaps more. They are the people so disillusioned and dissatisfied with the current system, that they are ready to renounce their ideologies and prejudices for the sake of a new system. We can not see that directly, because the media do not represent the world objectively. There never is a natural order, but two orders, old and new. The old order is not getting any newer, it has its own problems. The new order is comparatively almost as strong in hearts and minds of people. Our today's situation resembles a stalemate, not hopelessness. There never was as much good and as much evil in the world as it is today. The world is polarized, what was before inchoate and indeterminate, today is clearer and more definite, grain is separated from the chaff. Good people are better and bad people are worse. In such a situation, great changes are possible and very likely. It puts the "Arab Spring" into perspective, together with less known recent political revolutions in states of Europe and perhaps even the fall of the Berlin wall or revolt against the Vietnam war.

(28-12-2012 06:01 AM)Dom Wrote: I am not categorically opposed to communism (which this is) or anarchy or a libertarian society - but they don't seem to work because they ignore the human nature that has evolved for eons and can't wiped out and replaced just because it's rational to do so. They are intellectual theories that sound good but fail in application. Maybe eventually humanity will advance enough to be able to adopt one of these, but it isn't now, not by a long shot.

We are all animals after all. We are hardwired with fight or flight impulses, with some people these are exxagerated or faulty. We have hormones like adrenaline exacerbating these hard wired reactions. Religions exist for a reason - people's need for a simple explanation and framework. You can't wipe out culturally ingrained behaviors and thought processes all at once, nor in the course of a couple of generations.

There would be countless bastions of resistance. Possibly, but not necessarily, hostile opposition.

What opposition? Who could possibly be opposed to receiving the things promised in Universal declaration of human rights, the food, water, housing, healthcare, education and peace? Everyone wants these things and everyone deserves them. This is something that a whole planet can agree on, except a few crazies or Taliban extremists. Is that correct?

Hey, wait a moment. Nothing is hard-wired in the brain, nothing conscious. If we can get conscious of something, we can change it. Fight or flight response is controlled among the first, making civilization possible. Some yogis of the East even control muscles, organs and brain in ways unimaginable to medicine of the West.
I see a greater pattern and general principles of human affairs. What you see as failures, for example an acceptance of Communism or gullibility to religion, I see as a receptivity, responsiveness, the great read-write-copy-perform ability of human brain. If people are capable of following a faulty ideology, they will just as well be able to follow objective principles of society.
- Of course we have some solid knowledge as to how to build a society. The words of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi and others are no less valid or no less needed than they ever were. Society is basically a huge machine of changing the people. A bad society corrupts people and forces them existentially down to the base instincts. A good society brings people up and refines their virtues. Most of societies don't do all that much of either, but rather vegetate or give people just one kind of a lesson. The lesson of the current society is, that it's old and dying, eaten through by money and greed and we need a new, better one and we need it fast.
- Of course you can't expect all people to program themselves, not with anything meaningful. The programming that is philosophy, politics, art and others are serious disciplines that must be performed by competent experts. The reception, understanding, translation and presentation of ideas is entirely a man-made process, an artificial one. It is usually done by extraordinary people with significant charisma and influence, they are the creators of the culture of the nation and may become the programmers of people's minds. (the greatest of which is the American president, just after Oprah )
- Of course I can wipe culturally ingrained behaviors! It's called a generational revolt! People can sharply change a direction opposite to their parents. Specially the young ones. The old ones often can't.

(28-12-2012 06:01 AM)Dom Wrote: In short: Humans would have to evolve a lot more for this to work. You can't take short cuts in evolution.

Evolve how? There are two evolutions, the evolution of genes and the evolution of consciousness. The first one is really slow and we're on about the same level with all people. Yet there are vast differences in people's behavior.

(28-12-2012 06:01 AM)Dom Wrote: And that is not even starting to take into account that it would be physically very daunting to bring such a freebie society into existance.

Not more daunting than to go into a world war. And we never had any problem with that, not material, logistical, political... The present crisis is just as great justification for such an undertaking, it demands a war of its own, a war against the extreme poverty and inequality that kills more people yearly than any war ever did.

(28-12-2012 06:01 AM)Dom Wrote: It's good and fine to think about alternate cultural models, if everyone did we would be better for it all around. But these ideologies and ideas fail in applicability at the time.

With the new world wide communication available online cultural advances may be speeding up now. In a generation or so, most everyone will be online and able to interact with people from all corners of the world and learn to understand them. Maybe then a decent foundation for world peace ( a prerequisite for your model) and societal evolution will be easier to form.

But we ain't there yet.

Doesn't matter, who was ever ready? When anyone ever got any guarantees beforehand? We were ready after WW2, only people thought they have time. 10 years ago we were ready to meet Millenium Development Goals. It is not a question of readiness, but of political will. As long as there is a time, there is a time for politicians to do nothing, get richer and waste resources. It is perhaps better not to have time. Maybe it sounds crazy, but I thought you like crazy

(28-12-2012 09:42 AM)Dom Wrote: Well, we could debate this for years, which I am not about to do. I was just curious.

IMO you still fail to understand human nature.

Yeah, we could debate, but I always prefer we move somewhere with each post.
I see such a variety of types of people that what you describe as a human nature isn't a majority at all. It just doesn't fit, what you say. I think you'd benefit from some falsification of your worldview.
You seem to me focused on one particular class of people, which is much unlike most of people I know. I come from a broad loose group of spiritual folks. They're not intellectuals, but they're not crude people either. And they don't suppress any natural wild instincts, we naturally sit and sing Kum Ba Yah (proverbially, in fact, we sing mantras). They're not exceptions, local halls of spiritual lecturers hold hundreds of them at a time. I don't know where you got the extensive life experience you have, but as my people would say, we attract people that we resonate with.

Let me ask you, if you got to know such people personally (call it evidence), would you change your opinion on human nature? Not that spiritual stuff, but that human nature is to adopt any nature we grow into.

(28-12-2012 09:42 AM)Dom Wrote: You bring a billion people on board, then ask me to join and I'll have another look at how it's panning out.

My bet is that you can't get a billion. And that is simply because the world is not ready for world peace.

Do you realize how absurd that sounds? It means nothing, changes nothing. What are we supposed to do, if not peace? Are we supposed to stop and wait till we're evolved and to print more money to have something to play with until then? What does it mean that a world is not ready for world peace? What are we ready for and who decides that, how do we know? Were we ready for women's voting rights, for the end of apartheid, for legalization of gay marriage? We certainly weren't ready to end the slavery, there was a freakin' dozen or so American states in which it worked quite nicely. It took a freakin' bloody civil war to make them stop. Would you tell Grant, Lincoln and Darwin (anti-slavery activist himself), wait, we're not evolved enough to stop slavery? Would you tell George Washington and Thomas Jefferson that we're not evolved enough to live without the supervision of the British Empire? What about the nuclear bomb, should we consult our evolution experts before developing this technology? As I said, it's absurd, we got to do what we have to do.

(28-12-2012 09:42 AM)Dom Wrote: Well, we could debate this for years, which I am not about to do. I was just curious.

IMO you still fail to understand human nature.

Yeah, we could debate, but I always prefer we move somewhere with each post.
I see such a variety of types of people that what you describe as a human nature isn't a majority at all. It just doesn't fit, what you say. I think you'd benefit from some falsification of your worldview.
You seem to me focused on one particular class of people, which is much unlike most of people I know. I come from a broad loose group of spiritual folks. They're not intellectuals, but they're not crude people either. And they don't suppress any natural wild instincts, we naturally sit and sing Kum Ba Yah (proverbially, in fact, we sing mantras). They're not exceptions, local halls of spiritual lecturers hold hundreds of them at a time. I don't know where you got the extensive life experience you have, but as my people would say, we attract people that we resonate with.

Let me ask you, if you got to know such people personally (call it evidence), would you change your opinion on human nature? Not that spiritual stuff, but that human nature is to adopt any nature we grow into.

(28-12-2012 09:42 AM)Dom Wrote: You bring a billion people on board, then ask me to join and I'll have another look at how it's panning out.

My bet is that you can't get a billion. And that is simply because the world is not ready for world peace.

Do you realize how absurd that sounds? It means nothing, changes nothing. What are we supposed to do, if not peace? Are we supposed to stop and wait till we're evolved and to print more money to have something to play with until then? What does it mean that a world is not ready for world peace? What are we ready for and who decides that, how do we know? Were we ready for women's voting rights, for the end of apartheid, for legalization of gay marriage? We certainly weren't ready to end the slavery, there was a freakin' dozen or so American states in which it worked quite nicely. It took a freakin' bloody civil war to make them stop. Would you tell Grant, Lincoln and Darwin (anti-slavery activist himself), wait, we're not evolved enough to stop slavery? Would you tell George Washington and Thomas Jefferson that we're not evolved enough to live without the supervision of the British Empire? What about the nuclear bomb, should we consult our evolution experts before developing this technology? As I said, it's absurd, we got to do what we have to do.

The people you know sound like the hippies I used to hang with long ago. Peaceful, friendly folk who sit around and sing and talk. If only everyone was like that!

It took gays from the seventies to now to gain recognition. Women fought for women's rights to vote for decades. Ditto for Apartheid. These things don't happen overnight, they take decades of risky and devoted work, being ridiculed by the public and fighting on anyway.

As long as there are wars all over the globe, we're not having world peace. What are you going to do, go to the various countries and plead with them to make peace? How do you practically propose to get this baby off the ground?

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man

(28-12-2012 06:21 PM)Dom Wrote: The people you know sound like the hippies I used to hang with long ago. Peaceful, friendly folk who sit around and sing and talk. If only everyone was like that!

It took gays from the seventies to now to gain recognition. Women fought for women's rights to vote for decades. Ditto for Apartheid. These things don't happen overnight, they take decades of risky and devoted work, being ridiculed by the public and fighting on anyway.

As long as there are wars all over the globe, we're not having world peace. What are you going to do, go to the various countries and plead with them to make peace? How do you practically propose to get this baby off the ground?

Everyone can make peace, anywhere in the world. Interventions may be necessary in places like Congo or even Serbia/Albania, but they are militarily speaking a common kind of mission. The real problem, the focus of perpetual conflict in the world is, as you can guess, Palestine and its conquest by Israel. As long as there is the conflict of Israel, there can not be peace on Earth.
This is not just a dispute of who was there first. It's like the worst of our civilization threw in their lot with Israel. Specially the weapon traders, oil industry, Evangelical apocalyptics, East coast Sionist lobby and all the think tanks and politicians they can buy. They all get a lot of profit from that conflict, plus of course many Arab dictators around who sell weapons and oil too.

This indirectly points at a greater global need. When it comes to trade and business, it is a good thing but never at the detriment of the mentioned five basic human needs. To achieve a truly efficient and balanced distribution of world's resources and materials, they must be internationally shared through a method of transparent, sophisticated barter. The current method is based on speculation for the sole purpose of personal wealth and power, which causes
- extreme surplus of food in economically powerful states
- extreme poverty and hunger in economically weak states
- extreme influence of few speculating gamblers on stock markets on food and commodity prices (plus greater instability due to climate changes)
- monetary profits of speculation that do not contribute anything to the global public, as money are purely a social/political construct.
It is clear that the market fails here. However, we can't just take the resources and dump them somewhere. For example, EU has a heavily subsidized farming industry (almost a half of the budget, used to be up to 80 %!) which necessarily produces a large surplus. (due to heavy lobbying, despite of the fact that most farmers are actually paid NOT to produce food!) There were cases of large-scale destroying the food back in 96 or so, but due to the public pressure I think now they're shipping it to Africa. The problem is, the farmers there can't resist the inflow of european food with their farming, so they can't earn money, so they can't buy the shipped food anyway, nor build the local economy. They usually end up on Spanish farms growing lettuce for McDonald's and KFC.
Here you see another example of how money stop being the useful instrument they always were and become and impediment in access to the vital resources.

There are people who advocate a lesser, greater or gradual sharing of world resources, of course in a transparent and sophisticated way. For a beginning, we know there is the industrial surplus. The idea is to take that surplus and register it. Every nation should make a list of surplus resources. Then every nation should make a list of resources that it lacks. Then some special organization under the U.N. should keep track of it all and coordinate the information on what to send where in what amount.
Gradually this amount of shared resources should increase from mere surplus (that is often let to rot anyway in warehouses, so it doesn't decrease a market price) to all produced resources. This is how the resources will be declared a common heritage of all humanity and not a personal property. Because our whole glorious science of economy with all the wise heads and economy books is based on freebie resources from the nature. Labor adds to the price, but if human labor costs too much, replace it with machines who work relatively cheaply. They say, sell it as you bought it. (0,-)

Of course, the main, large-scale forms of financial speculation must be forbidden. Money is a socially-political construct and has no value on its own. It must be entirely regulated in an interest-free way by national central banks. For the time that they will exist at all, they must exist only in the amount used to exchange goods and services, which is about 5% of the monetary reserves of today. So even if the national banks print money according to the need, there'd be far less money in existence. I'm in favor of the interest-free currency, that does not grow in volume, similarly to how the body uses blood, a constant amount of it. However, the choice of local currencies that lose value over time is an interesting one and proven in practice, it prevents accumulation of wealth, speeds up economy and gives more control to the national bank over the overall money supply.
Of course, third world debts must be forgiven. They are anyway mostly a result of international usury practices, getting the nations into debt. The economically-financial institutions of today are self-appointed instruments of power and inherent inequality, causing injustice and provoking much violence. Remember, the Islamic terrorists on the September 11 did not target a church building, not even a megachurch. They targeted a center of world trade. They could kill more people, they could send a religious message. But they chose the symbol of economic supremacy as their target. Why should the world have a trade center at all, except to dominate it?

If you are concerned about how the common resources should and shouldn't be managed, I'd readily admit ignorance and point our attention to study of a book like this - Governing of Commons by Elinor Ostrom. It is not my plan to re-invent the wheel or to slap my copyright on everything or to fail. The world is full of know-how and instruments, only people are narrow-minded and they see every single instrument as a world solution in itself and so apply it far beyond its area of usefulness.

(27-12-2012 09:58 PM)Ghost Wrote: I'm with you. The idea that humanity is flawed and irredeemably greedy and blah blah blah, is a salvationist notion that was unfortunately taken up by Les Philosophes of the Enlightenment. It's crap.

Humanity is NOT clockwork. Psychology, anthropology, politics: these are all arts for a reason. The saying I run with is, mechanistic, not deterministic. Meaning there are mechanisms at work inside the human being and behind society, but condition A does not necessarily result in outcome B. In short, we ain't robots. That being said, yeah, if you make conditions better for people, they're likely to respond positively.

Yes, this is what I see as a space that RBE leaves for the freedom and creativity of people. It creates a better environment for beneficial conditioning of people, which is basically what a good upbringing and culture means. It's not just technology, the resources and bibliography that Fresco draws from are heavily based on genetic research and social sciences. It correctly points at all the ways to do things if you really want them done.
But as for the creativity itself, I think we really need to sum up some basic socially-humanistic commandments

Two commandments are
1) Thou shalt maintain harmony with other people and the environment.
Harmony means a dynamic equilibrium that balances out the inequalities, not dividing everything equally 50/50, that would be a dead stalemate. Don't be a dick, be sincere, fair and faithful, use only what you need, share the rest... But if you want to be truly free, you have to use that freedom for service. There's no better use for a freedom but a service, a contribution to the world. By using freedom for gratification of personality we need some kind of borders so we don't descend into decadent and stagnant hedonism, but if you lose yourself in service, you can be free in whatever you do, you don't need the limitations for ego, the laws, because you are the law and the ego is completely devoted to it. Very few people today reach that way of living.

2) Thou shalt develop your potential to the fullest.
Developing our potential is basically building our personality, our ego. A big, strong ego is how we get things done in this world. Ego should not be broken or diminished except to bring it closer to the commandment 1. As the ego grows, it should gradually undergo development that bring it more to the general contribution to society using its talent and perhaps according to what the society needs, that is service. (which believe it or not, can be actually a great fun, once you get the hang of it)

This system needs to get going, so we reach a so-called golden age, a sustainable society, in which basic needs are met and there's a plenty of freedom for creativity. Because, the human kingdom has a special function that it needs to start doing. We humans are receivers of inspiration and ideas from... let's say higher philosophic worlds - like Plato's "world of forms" for example - and we are supposed to put these ideas into practice in a most authentic way. We are here to enrich the material world according to our best ideas into art for example, but not limited to art, any personal expression, from genetically modified plants or pets to a useful institution or a club. Living aware of this higher world of meaning, discovering it, expressing it, that's a great joy and yet they are essentially immaterial values, that we bring into material manifestation. It is like we would speed up and direct the animal and plant evolution alongside ours. Our evolution of consciousness, mainly. Society is a machine of transforming people, let's build ours to do the job well, to transform them to go upwards on Maslow's pyramid of values and not downwards.

(27-12-2012 09:58 PM)Ghost Wrote: Scarcity is a reality of existence that Our culture's system obfuscates and shelters us from. Scarcity is normal. Unlimited supply is a total aberration, and not one that can be sustained.

Technically, scarcity isn't normal. Our ancestors rather lived at the areas and numbers that their environment allowed. They lived with the cycles of nature and moved where the food was. Everyone else died off. Or they lived all the time among their fields. There wasn't scarcity, the people lived as well as they could and did not need more, strictly speaking. Like Indians, they didn't need firewater or metal knives and fire sticks. There was no scarcity of these, because there wasn't any demand. It was marketing of the white man that created this demand.
Unlike it is now, when half of people live in cities and the cities don't produce almost anything, no food certainly, so there's a demand for food. And many other demands are artificially created, it's artificial scarcity. Today's system creates scarcity inherently, it's based on it. It's the basis of all economic textbooks. It's interesting point actually, my teachers translate scarcity more like a "rareness". They think it's a good thing! I translate it rather as "lack" of something.

RBE is a system that eliminates scarcity through abundance. Abundance isn't overwhelming, it's three meals a day, no more, not less, but forever, something you can count on, so you can stop worrying and go doing something that's fun and good for you and the society.

(27-12-2012 09:58 PM)Ghost Wrote: As for totalitarianism, I don't know that much about RBE, but bitch be trippin.

Perfect freedom does not exist. Societal living is only possible through compromise, norms and limitations. This guy just doesn't like a particular set of limitations, the ones that prevent him from having diamond plated yachts and large breasted hookers to sniff coke off of. Thus it's totalitarian, maaaaaaaaan. Foolishness.

As for his problem, I could get real in depth, but I'll fire out this nugget. Our culture sucks for people. Not just poor people. Everyone. We're a bunch of miserable SOBs because that's what our system does to us. Shinny things and heroin let us pretend we've escaped it momentarily. This guy has a whole lot of shinny things. So why would he want to give them up? Kind of a simplistic thing to say on my part, but for some people, stuff is the only life preserver they know exists. So they're leery of giving it up, especially when the ship is sinking.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I think you've nailed it. A loss of what we have is still great even if there's potentially more ahead. So that's why people get scared and invoke totalitarianism, they see only their loss (that is in fact only a change) and not everyone's gain.

Developing potential is good too. Reminds me of Star Trek, in that the profit motive was replaced by the developing potential motive.

On scarcity: it's absolutely normal (although I am not speaking about the effects of economic scarcity on pricing if that's what you're thinking). Scarcity is a natural part of being a predator. When your population grows, the prey species shrinks, meaning your population has to shrink, which gives them room to rebound, meaning your population can grow. That's the way it works for all organisms.

Nomadic hunter gatherers did keep moving around, but they were always depleting the prey species in whichever area they spent time in. They just had the sense (and the room) to move on to another area. But they had to give a depleted area time to rebound before they came back. And if they let their population grow too large, no amount of moving around would help them.

Every area has a carrying capacity. If you outstrip it, you go into overshoot. Population reduction or population collapse is the inevitable result of overshoot.

What we have done for the last few thousand years is use our ability to arbitrarily increase an area's carrying capacity in order to stave off overshoot. It began the day we first became sedentary. The problem is that in order to increase an area's carrying capacity, we need to convert the available biomass into humans, human food and food for human food. This is why we're decimating ecosystems the world over. We're quite literally devouring them. Our ability to stave off overshoot is, as it turns out, unsustainable. When it comes to our converting of biomass, we are currently in deficit spending. In the very near future, we will go into overshoot and we will either experience a reduction in population or a population collapse. And a population collapse is no kind of fun. Just ask the people on Easter Island.

If we set limits to how much we take, then we necessarily set limits on our population. Deliberately maintaining a population around the ability for the carrying capacity to support it is a great idea (accepting that the actual value we tinker with is the product of population x footprint). Unfortunately, populations always grow to their food supply. Meaning without draconian laws in place to maintain birthrates, people will have children when there's food available. So we will outstrip our carrying capacity. The question then becomes, do we allow scarcity to have its effect on us, or do we increase carrying capacity?

Daniel Quinn points out that our reaction for the last 5 000 years has been to increase carrying capacity, either by planting more crops, killing more competing species, increasing output technologically, or annexing more land. This has created a positive feedback loop much like the arms race; a phenomenon Quinn dubbed the food race. Have a food supply, grow into it, make more food, grow into it. It is the reason that there has been a 70 000% increase in the human population in the last 5 000 years. Again, it's not gonna last forever.

Ultimately, not only is scarcity normal, but no matter how fast or how far you run, it's gonna catch up to you.

Abundance is great (for what it is). Having a surplus is the cornerstone of our economy. It's also the fuel of the food race. Our exploitative hierarchical system is the only thing that allows us to produce a constant surplus (because if you don't produce a surplus, you don't make the money required to buy food, because all of the food is locked up). So abundance is only possible through exploitation. If we exploit robots instead of people, great, so long as we're smart enough to not make them sentient. But abundance will always lead to population growth.

But if abundance means an essentially fixed level (because carrying capacity always fluctuates a little, so there needs to be wiggle room), then I suppose that's not bad. But setting and maintaining that level poses a difficult challenge.

Anyhoo, don't feel like this is me shitting on RBE. I'm just pointing out some mechanics here.

(27-12-2012 06:19 AM)Luminon Wrote: ...
What kind of social experiment do you perform? What courses?
...

Sorry for the delayed response... been out of internet range

The tiny little social experiment concerns how I live:
It's difficult to describe without sounding pretentious but essentially I provide shelter for a small number of people for who possessions were important (cos they had none) and while living here they have the opportunity to move up the Maslow ladder a little.
I don't charge rent and there is an atmosphere of security/safety i.e. no need to worry about where the next meal is coming from.
Sometimes a hierarchy starts to form (if there is an alpha female) but usually there is a self-enforcing balance of who ends up doing what around the place.

Leading by example, it is my policy never to own more than can fit into two suitcases. Sometimes this rubs off onto those who live here and sometimes it doesn't but it's interesting to observe how people change when they get here and how much appreciation they show when it's time for them to move on.

The courses I referred to are concerning 'best practices' i.e. the processes by which services / businesses / communities etc. can be managed most efficiently and effectively. These processes include managing of: Incidents, Problems, Changes, Requests (perhaps this forum might benefit from some of these ), Finances, Assets, Knowledge, Service Levels etc. and possible more relevant to the subject at hand, managing of: Demand, Availability, Capacity, Security and Continuity.
26 service-related processes in all + 37 governance/management-related processes.

Venus project. I dislike it very much. A perfect world to one of us will never be a perfect world to all of us. I someday dream of my isolated cabin in the hills where I can live off the land and see or speak to no one for days or months even. I've got nothing against others signing up for a Venus project if that's their desire but my fear would be that it would end up being some type of Venus 'flytrap' instead. A system that can only be maintained by never letting anyone out of it. A Utopian intention that ends up being a 1984 scenario. Too much like actual history there.

Progress is never linear and will always have it's peaks and pitfalls. The growth of a society is a homeostatic pool of give and take, thriving on competition and experimentation. We'll never know what's best for anything if everything is not being explored and tested constantly. Besides, what about the human nature of rebellion? Of hacking? Or what about my ability or need to do things differently just because I can?

I do however, think technology is leading the evolution of human citizenry to a more open source method and that's where I agree with you. Though it's more likely to happen gradually and on it's own instead of by some master plan. A guy name Clay Shirky a good feel on the pulse of this stuff in his books and TED talks.